quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Excellent post Zonie.

And an incisive and intelligent question at the end of it too. My feeling is that the world was taking little steps forward towards establishing a system of international relations that would eventually establish a fair and equal set of rules for all States backed up by international law.

That is, until the gruesome horrors of 9/11, and the equally insane response to those events manged to put any progress onto the back burner. Will we ever get back to the place we were in pre-9/11? I doubt it, but see no reason why we can't learn from the mistakes that were made and progress. To do that, it needs to be acknowledged that 9/11 wasn't a wholly outrageous bolt from the blue, that there are real reasons why it occurred that aren't acknowledged or even sayable in many quarters even today, that some aspects of US policy had for a long time made an event of that nature inevitable.

Sadly I see little evidence that any such acknowledgement is forthcoming.

The current administration is dialing back the belligerence by one,acknowledging that we haven`t aways been true to our ideals(bush/torture/preemptive war) and by declaring that we won`t use nukes as a 1st option.

The cons call it the "apology tour" and send dick cheney out every once in a while, to scare folks out of their wits and morals.

quote:

I think the most damning disparagement against America, though, is not so much in criticizing what we do as much as what we say about it. If America was judged solely by its actions, then I would say that we would be on par with any other great power or empire in world history - no better or worse, morally speaking. But I think what galls a lot of people around the world is when we say that it's for the sake of "freedom" and "democracy" while stubbornly refusing to admit that it's yet another empire trying to expand itself and maintain power and hegemony over the world. That kind of arrogant hypocrisy is a bit hard to take, both within America and around the rest of the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The British Empire ruled famously by "divide and conquer". Not an original policy but the Brits did it well. The problems with this policy only became apparent when the Brits either left, and civil war inevitably followed in just about every African and Asian colony - Kenya South Africa, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Palestine, across the Middle East to India Pakistan Malaya (the only exception I can think of off the top of my head are the West Indies and Burma though the military took over in Burma as soon as Brits walked and we all know what they are like) or the Brits were thrown out by violent nationalist uprisings eg Rep pf Ireland, the USA etc . Either way the inevitable outcome of British imperialism was disastrous for most of the people it colonised. In India alone, people died in their tens of millions. The ill effects still linger with us today (eg Palestine/Israel, Nthrn Ireland, Indo-Pakistani tensions).

Imperialism is indefensible in this day and age Polite. It may have cute sentimental memories for some Brits but even among the British people, any benefits from the Empire were strictly withheld from the ordinary people and monopolised by the ruling elites, who quite happily sent the British plebs off to die for the aggrandisement of the British upper classes. Best you consign it to nostalgia too

quote:

ORIGINAL: ermood

And what would happen if China suddenly would demand its money?

It would be the end of the US economy

quote:

Perhaps, although I think that would depend on the goals and what "winning" actually means.

quote:

Not the poorest by any measure. Sure, we have poor people in the United States, but at least they still have access to the basic necessities (although the system is starting to crack). I'll concede that there are some countries in Europe which may surpass the United States in several factors measuring quality of life, but compared to the world as a whole, I would still say that the U.S. is still in the top tier - not even close to the poorest.

quote:

Oh, they're listening, but I can sense that some of them don't like what they're hearing these days. Granted, the U.S. has problems, many of which are our own creation, so our influence is clearly waning.

quote:

Hard to say. I remember during the Cold War, it was said that their missiles may have had a bigger yield, but our missiles were more accurate. But if there ever had been an all-out nuclear war, it wouldn't really matter, since both sides would have been mostly wiped out. Being the most powerful doesn't mean much when the second-most powerful can still wipe you out (or even the the third-, fourth-, or fifth-most powerful).

quote:

In response to your original question, I think the U.S. government actually does support "freedom" and "democracy,"

quote:

In response to your original question, I think the U.S. government actually does support "freedom" and "democracy,"

(in reply to Zonie63)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

The US uses its military, along with foreign aid, as tools to force markets open and once open, to keep them stable.

So, then, the entire motivation is ideological? I would agree with that. However, whether this policy yields any real practical benefit to America remains to be seen. When looking at the numbers and the overall state of the U.S. economy today, it would appear that this policy has not been successful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The British Empire ruled famously by "divide and conquer". Not an original policy but the Brits did it well. The problems with this policy only became apparent when the Brits either left, and civil war inevitably followed in just about every African and Asian colony - Kenya South Africa, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Palestine, across the Middle East to India Pakistan Malaya (the only exception I can think of off the top of my head are the West Indies and Burma though the military took over in Burma as soon as Brits walked and we all know what they are like) or the Brits were thrown out by violent nationalist uprisings eg Rep pf Ireland, the USA etc . Either way the inevitable outcome of British imperialism was disastrous for most of the people it colonised. In India alone, people died in their tens of millions. The ill effects still linger with us today (eg Palestine/Israel, Nthrn Ireland, Indo-Pakistani tensions).

Imperialism is indefensible in this day and age Polite. It may have cute sentimental memories for some Brits but even among the British people, any benefits from the Empire were strictly withheld from the ordinary people and monopolised by the ruling elites, who quite happily sent the British plebs off to die for the aggrandisement of the British upper classes. Best you consign it to nostalgia too

Israel/Palestine can be put down to the UN, more than british involvment.

quote:

Thats even without the fact we kicked out the Ottoman Empire.

quote:

Ireland is down to the whole Protestant/Catholic split in Europe as a whole. you need to understand one event to explain how the other arose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Excellent post Zonie.

quote:


And an incisive and intelligent question at the end of it too. My feeling is that the world was taking little steps forward towards establishing a system of international relations that would eventually establish a fair and equal set of rules for all States backed up by international law.

quote:


That is, until the gruesome horrors of 9/11, and the equally insane response to those events manged to put any progress onto the back burner. Will we ever get back to the place we were in pre-9/11? I doubt it, but see no reason why we can't learn from the mistakes that were made and progress. To do that, it needs to be acknowledged that 9/11 wasn't a wholly outrageous bolt from the blue, that there are real reasons why it occurred that aren't acknowledged or even sayable in many quarters even today, that some aspects of US policy had for a long time made an event of that nature inevitable.

Sadly I see little evidence that any such acknowledgement is forthcoming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I think the most damning disparagement against America, though, is not so much in criticizing what we do as much as what we say about it. If America was judged solely by its actions, then I would say that we would be on par with any other great power or empire in world history - no better or worse, morally speaking. But I think what galls a lot of people around the world is when we say that it's for the sake of "freedom" and "democracy" while stubbornly refusing to admit that it's yet another empire trying to expand itself and maintain power and hegemony over the world. That kind of arrogant hypocrisy is a bit hard to take, both within America and around the rest of the world.

I agree with tweak...hard believe I know... this is a good post. I do have a few comments though. Unlike many empires of the past that expanded for strictly power I believe Americas expansion was different in some ways.

There is no doubt then and today America seeks to protect its economic power. This is our dirty underwear and is somewhat shameful in today’s world view and I agree.

But I think where we can stand tall and be proud is in our desire to bring freedom, even if just our brand, to the world. We have many times though our history sacrificed our children to promote freedom of others with no financial gain. Because of our past and many many immigrants that have moved thousands of miles to start new lives we have mentally strong, opinionated, and yes aggressive people. This often causes rash decision making even when made with a good heart.

All and all I must say with all our warts we still have much to be proud of in this country.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: ermood

quote:

Perhaps, although I think that would depend on the goals and what "winning" actually means.

achieving their goals.

quote:

quote:

Not the poorest by any measure. Sure, we have poor people in the United States, but at least they still have access to the basic necessities (although the system is starting to crack). I'll concede that there are some countries in Europe which may surpass the United States in several factors measuring quality of life, but compared to the world as a whole, I would still say that the U.S. is still in the top tier - not even close to the poorest.

This is what i always get from people, when i say the poorest country on earth i actually mean that on paper they are.
The US is on paper the poorest country of the earth, but (see biggest economy) they have the economic strength to recover themselfs from that.
For example, most countries would be bankrubt already 10 times when they would have the same debt as the US.

quote:

quote:

Oh, they're listening, but I can sense that some of them don't like what they're hearing these days. Granted, the U.S. has problems, many of which are our own creation, so our influence is clearly waning.

Well in this you're wrong, most countries don't listen anymore to the US. Mostly becouse the power of the US is falling rapedly.
Look to Iraq, US demanded that they would search every Iranian airplane that went to Syria, Iraq refused. This is only a small example of them.

quote:

quote:

Hard to say. I remember during the Cold War, it was said that their missiles may have had a bigger yield, but our missiles were more accurate. But if there ever had been an all-out nuclear war, it wouldn't really matter, since both sides would have been mostly wiped out. Being the most powerful doesn't mean much when the second-most powerful can still wipe you out (or even the the third-, fourth-, or fifth-most powerful).

All true, but accuraty doesn't really matter with nuclear bombs, especially when you have the most distructive ones. But besides that, yes they would have distroyed eachother and nobody would have gain anything. But still it does matter, as the US fears Russia for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub


I agree with tweak...hard believe I know... this is a good post. I do have a few comments though. Unlike many empires of the past that expanded for strictly power I believe Americas expansion was different in some ways.

There is no doubt then and today America seeks to protect its economic power. This is our dirty underwear and is somewhat shameful in today’s world view and I agree.

But I think where we can stand tall and be proud is in our desire to bring freedom, even if just our brand, to the world. We have many times though our history sacrificed our children to promote freedom of others with no financial gain. Because of our past and many many immigrants that have moved thousands of miles to start new lives we have mentally strong, opinionated, and yes aggressive people. This often causes rash decision making even when made with a good heart.

All and all I must say with all our warts we still have much to be proud of in this country.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

quote:



Israel/Palestine can be put down to the UN, more than british involvment.

The pre-UN Balfour Declaration notwithstanding.

quote:

Thats even without the fact we kicked out the Ottoman Empire.

And in subsequence drew a completely new post-WWI map that we see today that had not a thing to do with the history of the region or any concern of the people living there, but everything to do with the interests of the political and oil interests of Britain, France, and Std. Oil and BP.

quote:

Ireland is down to the whole Protestant/Catholic split in Europe as a whole. you need to understand one event to explain how the other arose.

Slavery and starvation of Ireland by Britain existed even before King John, in any case several centuries before Martin Luther or Henry VIII came along. I suppose we should take it that Irish letters and culture got quite a boost from these repeated and incessant episodes, rather than anything inherent to their existing abilities or potential.


But, as Disreali said;

"What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Their biggest complaint seems to be that Americans aren't listening to them, not the other way around. Americans are often chastised for not knowing enough about geography or much else about the outside world, while more non-Americans seem to know an awful lot about America (or claim to).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Not to mention how much they eat up American music, movies, TV shows, McDonalds, Disneyland, Las Vegas, Hollywood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Which country would you fear more, Russia or the U.S.? During the Cold War, do you think the Netherlands should have sided with the Soviet Union? Or were they correct to join NATO and side with the United States?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


Slavery and starvation of Ireland by Britain existed even before King John, in any case several centuries before Martin Luther or Henry VIII came along. I suppose we should take it that Irish letters and culture got quite a boost from these repeated and incessant episodes, rather than anything inherent to their existing abilities or potential.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
You miss the salient points. If you go back through history, nothing is as it is today. Ireland, for instance, has a long interconnected history with England. The problems Tweaks referred to stem from the Protestant/Catholic schism. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

If you wish to debate the ins and outs of early history of these isles, feel free to start a thread and I will oblige. We can start with the Plantagenets and the Holy See`s Papal Bull, or we can go back as far as the Picts and the Celts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

The British Empire ruled famously by "divide and conquer". Not an original policy but the Brits did it well. The problems with this policy only became apparent when the Brits either left, and civil war inevitably followed in just about every African and Asian colony - Kenya South Africa, Zimbabwe, Egypt, Palestine, across the Middle East to India Pakistan Malaya (the only exception I can think of off the top of my head are the West Indies and Burma though the military took over in Burma as soon as Brits walked and we all know what they are like) or the Brits were thrown out by violent nationalist uprisings eg Rep pf Ireland, the USA etc . Either way the inevitable outcome of British imperialism was disastrous for most of the people it colonised. In India alone, people died in their tens of millions. The ill effects still linger with us today (eg Palestine/Israel, Nthrn Ireland, Indo-Pakistani tensions).

Imperialism is indefensible in this day and age Polite. It may have cute sentimental memories for some Brits but even among the British people, any benefits from the Empire were strictly withheld from the ordinary people and monopolised by the ruling elites, who quite happily sent the British plebs off to die for the aggrandisement of the British upper classes. Best you consign it to nostalgia too

Tweakable, your anti imperialist stance may seem noble, but it flatly overlooks both the evidence, and indeed what history is. You could argue the case against any empire from your standpoint, and in doing that you would be right. That said, you would then overlook both the evidence and history prior to Imperialism.

Israel/Palestine can be put down to the UN, more than british involvment. Thats even without the fact we kicked out the Ottoman Empire.

Ireland is down to the whole Protestant/Catholic split in Europe as a whole. you need to understand one event to explain how the other arose.

India as such wasnt unified until British Rule. It was a collection of waring states, are you suggesting that was any better than when we left, considering the British influence on Modern India with education, administration and the railways systems.

Much of southern Africa had been torn apart by the Zulu Empire, long before we arrived. Even in Australia the biggest cause of death amongst indigenous people was caused unknowingly by diseases, such as flu and small pox.

As for plebs being sent to die, in many cases that has always been the case, but the armed forces was a way for poor kids to better themselves. As for the general populace, the trade brought to the UK provided jobs and a living wage to many. Far better that than living on subsistance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


Slavery and starvation of Ireland by Britain existed even before King John, in any case several centuries before Martin Luther or Henry VIII came along. I suppose we should take it that Irish letters and culture got quite a boost from these repeated and incessant episodes, rather than anything inherent to their existing abilities or potential.

quote:

Zonie
But it all seems to depend on the unanimous accession of the major powers. Without that, international law just doesn't work.